From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: ISO image available for testing! Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2017 09:14:26 +0100 Message-ID: <87indk9st9.fsf@gnu.org> References: <877f16z9eo.fsf@gnu.org> <87infv54m3.fsf@gnu.org> <87efqgnn7x.fsf@elephly.net> <878teo59tb.fsf@gnu.org> <20171201183042.GB2504@jasmine.lan> <87tvxadz11.fsf@elephly.net> <87lgiirhsf.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <874lp618iy.fsf@cbaines.net> <87shcoaj2w.fsf@gnu.org> <87bmjcvft3.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36168) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eMUqf-0003hZ-60 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Dec 2017 03:14:34 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eMUqc-0004KW-15 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Dec 2017 03:14:33 -0500 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([141.255.128.1]:58568) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eMUqb-0004Jr-R1 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Dec 2017 03:14:29 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87bmjcvft3.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Tue, 05 Dec 2017 19:52:08 -0500") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Mark H Weaver Cc: guix-devel Hi Mark, Mark H Weaver skribis: > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: >> 91c9b5d01 * packages: 'package-grafts' trims native inputs. > > [...] > >> Long story short: we were flagging native inputs as potential sources of >> grafts even though, by definition, native inputs are not referred to at >> run time. > > I agree that this *should* never happen, but I see little reason for > confidence that it never happens in actual fact. > > What would happen if a reference to a native-input *was* present in the > build outputs? The reason I ask is that, for security reasons, it's > obviously very important to reliably avoid using ungrafted software at > run time. > > I'm concerned that this recent change could cause minor > nearly-undetectable packaging mistakes to become major security holes. Given the examples that Tobias and Ben were quick to find, I=E2=80=99m afra= id you=E2=80=99re right and I was overconfident. I=E2=80=99m reverting the ch= ange. > One solution would be to explicitly check build outputs for references > to native-inputs, and to force a build failure in that case. We could do that, though I suppose a lot of packages would break. Thanks to the quick reply, Ludo=E2=80=99.